Cell-Telephony and
Ecological Concerns
By:
R.K. Kohli*, VP Sharma** and H.P. Singh***
With the advancement of information technology and electronic
communication, the use of mobile-phone technology has escalated
enormously in the recent past. There is huge mushrooming of
cell-phone users` and hence the towers emitting electromagnetic
frequency radiations (emf-r) in the environment. Other than TV,
Radio and Cell-phone towers, other forms of communication technology
(cordless phones, fax machines) and the use of internet services and
satellite has also boosted emf-r cloud in the environment. In this
whole scenario if emf-r has harmful effects then it will definitely
affect individuals’ health other biota, and thus ecology.
Basics
Radiation is a natural component of earth’s atmosphere. Emf spectrum
could be divided into ionizing (eg x-rays, UV etc.) and non-ionizing
(eg. emitted from high voltage power-lines, radio and TV towers,
Photostat machines, cell-phone towers etc.). The non-ionizing
radiations being of relatively longer wavelength have relatively
less power, thereby cause no immediate damage. Presumably for this
reason, these are mistakenly assumed to be harmless. Modern man
under the umbrella of development has infused the whole planet earth
under the enormous cloud of such non-ionizing radiations. The
intensity of these radiations are so much and so persistent now that
every life-form of the urban biosphere is exposed to it. These
radiations affect in dual ways, (a) thermal effect (since they
generate heat on the surface, body or tissue they fall on and
increase the temperature of the surroundings) and (b) non-thermal.
In the case of high tension power lines, the emf-r generated effects
are localized and limited, unlike those from cell-phones and their
towers, which are almost everywhere.
For any
action of emf-r on biological systems, it is the power density (a
product of strengths of electric and magnetic fields measured in W/m2)
that reduces with distance, and the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).
SAR depends on cell-phone wattage and body tissue. It will also
depend on the conductivity, body weight and surface area of the
absorptive system. For instance, it is higher in children than in
adults. Service providers are required to report their SAR to
regulating agency. As per Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
1999 the upper limit for SAR is 1.6W/Kg body wt. This is with
respect to man. One wonders the limits for insects and microbes.
Further, this exposure depends on product of power density and
duration of exposure apart from the distance and absence of
obstacles. Its strength decreases with increasing distance, although
the total energy radiated from the source remains the same. Insects,
birds and microbes have no such protective obstacles like houses and
buildings.
People love wireless communication. Cell-phone industry is
therefore, thriving and progressing. Common man does not understand
ecological principles and thus the consequences for posterity.
FCC
that regulates the standards for such emissions uses thermal effects
of the Radio-frequency (RF) radiations as the parameter of
evaluation. It is here that the basic error seems to have crept into
decision making. The thermal (and non-thermal) effects caused by
each individual installation or gadget may be negligibly small, the
production and use of RF generating devises is so huge and
continuous that the cumulative impact has assumed dangerous
proportions today.
Chandigarh, a very small city, with an urban area
of 78 sq Km has 408 cell-phone towers. In a preliminary survey the
range of emf-r was found to be between 564 and 97926 μW/m2
as against the presumable permissible limit of10 μW/m2
Even if cell-phone is not in use or not in that area, the biota
including the soil ecosystem is continuously exposed to its emf-r.
The cumulative effect of daily exposure is expected to be enormous
and devastating in long run. Those who use cell-phone handsets are
getting voluntarily exposed to emf-r while those not using it get
involuntary exposure to such radiations that too continuously. Many
articles available in literature try to link the emf-r to cancer of
various types, behavioral change, immediate memory loss, fatal
tissue damage, DNA strand breakage, suppression of endocrine and
immune system, cataract of eyes, altered blood chemistry.
Standards & Guidelines
Apart from ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection) - an independent scientific commission
established by the International Radiation Protection Association,
there are national and international bodies like FCC of USA; IEEE -
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; NRPB - National
Radiological Protection Board (UK); NCRP - National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements which are working to maintain
the emf-r standards. Surprisingly, although the ecological
principles and the biological systems anywhere are similar, the
standards and guidelines vary. Several states have set their own
national standards for exposure to emf-r. However, they vary by a
factor of over 100. Strikingly for many developing nations there are
no standards set.
RADIO WAVE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
in a few countries |
Exposure level (W/cm2) |
RADIO WAVE
EXPOSURE STANDARDS
in a few countries |
Exposure
level (W/cm2) |
New South Wales, Australia |
0.001 |
Australia |
200 |
Salzburg, Austria (for pulsed transmissions)
|
0.1 |
New Zealand |
200–1000 |
Russia |
2–10 |
Japan |
200–1000 |
Bulgaria |
2–10 |
Germany |
200–1000 |
Hungary |
2–10 |
United States |
200–1000 |
Switzerland |
2–10 |
Canada |
200–1000 |
China |
7–10 |
United Kingdom |
1000–10000 |
Italy |
10 |
source:
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdf |
Auckland, New Zealand |
50 |
The decision makers seem to have
set standards keeping man under focus while ignoring other forms of
biota under consideration. Usually, commercial interests influence
the decision making. ICNIRP considered thermal effects while making
its recommendations and commercial interests. Some nations finding
it economically beneficial adopted it. Same mistake India is likely
to commit. Cell-phone industry and service provider groups, being
monetarily strong, influence in decision making apart from modifying
and interpreting the existing laws.
Guidelines normally set for average population cannot take care of
the thresholds of a minority of sensitive people or low weight
children or pregnant mothers. Air pollution guidelines, for example,
are not focused on the needs of asthmatic patients. Similarly, emf-r
guidelines are not designed to protect heart patients with implanted
pacemakers that have low limits of emf-r disturbance.
Controversial perceptions on health effects
Controversies and public debates on the possible effects of RF
radiations emitted from the cell-phones or their base station (that
receive and transmit the signals) and transmitters on human health
and other biotic components, soil structure and dynamics, apart from
the whole terrestrial ecology have erupted.
On one
side cell-phone companies and big industrial houses are giving
impression that these wireless technologies are very safe, as
cigarettes companies were saying 40 years ago but now total concept
has changed with the findings that cigarettes are carcinogenic.
They also argue that
there is no technology that is free from any hazard. The radio
stations and other such installations that are in use for the last
many decades have not shown any perceivable direct or indirect
effects on human health, other biota or even the ecology. According
to them there is nothing wrong with the technology if used with
recommended precautions. In nature there are many forces operative
simultaneously; in the absence of any prior studies (in favor or
against) evidencing the impact of emf-rs exclusively from the
cell-phony, there seems no justification of the accusation against
the technology or the gadget.
Environmentalists on
the other hand often argue that for general public the exposure
levels arising from the handset phones held close to the ear
adversely affect the brain, leading to short-term memory loss,
headache, brain-tumors, sleep disorders, cancers, depression and
tiredness and uveal melanoma of eye etc. These radiations cause
thermal and non-thermal impacts on the biota they fall on. In
addition, these electronic gadgets indirectly affect personal safety
of the public by increasing risk of accidents, hazards of waste
pile-up and damage to the buildings from the towers in urban
habitation.
Microwave ovens work on 2.45 Ghz frequency to cook food. Cell-phones
use the same/very near high frequency waves to communicate with
cell-phone towers to connect the phone call. However, the intensity
of the cell-phone waves is much weaker. Microwave on high power
cooks food quicker than if set at low power. Cell-phones and their
transmission towers may have the same slow effect. Thermal effects
of emf-r from cell-phone are well established. Long-term exposure to
high intensity emf-r causes Microwave syndrome and health hazard. In
Moscow, low intensity microwave bombardment 5
mW/cm2
for 9 hours/day, from low intensity radar from 1950-1970 made on US embassy led three
U.S. Ambassadors to death and also caused cancer in 30 women and
children.
Several metabolic events in the body itself also generate currents.
Low frequency cell-phone emf-r also induces currents in the living
tissue. The cells/tissues fail to detect such induced currents below
the background level. Therefore, at low frequencies, exposure
guidelines ensure that the level of current induced by
electromagnetic fields is below that of natural body currents.
Impacts on Biota
Cell-telephony is a new technology incidentally with no proper
long-term scientific studies reported on health effects, such as
cancer. The data available that form the basis for guidelines or
standards set by different countries are based on the thermal
effects due to similar emf-r from the high tension wires passing
through the agricultural fields.
Trees exposed to high frequency waves convert these absorbed
radiations into electrical currents which flow into the soil leading
to change in pH and soil temperature.
In an interesting study in the University of Leeds UK as reported by
National Geography News (July 21, 2006), while comparing a million
records on wild honeybees from over hundreds of sites in UK and the
Netherlands before and after 1980, a dramatic decline in the
diversity of bees to the tune of 80% of the sites was noticed.
Likewise, in Florida, a veteran beekeeper David Hackenberg lost 364
of 400 colonies / beehives. Such disappearance was noticed in 24
other states also. The number of beehives dropped from 12000 to just
1000. This led to an emergency working group to look for the
possible reasons including pathogen (invasive mite,
fungal/bacterial/viral) attack. However, nothing conclusive except
widespread failure of bee’s immune system was expected. However, if
it was true, mass death rather than disappearance would have been
reported. The exodus of honeybees could have been because of emf-r
cloud rather than microbial attack.
Similarly, drastic decline in the populations of hoverfly – another
pollinator in UK has become a source of worry for naturalists,
horticulturists, agriculturists and biodiversity conservationists
alike. This has consequently led to decline in insect-pollinated
wild flowers with no effect on wind-pollinated flora. The reason,
here also remains elusive.
Likewise, House-sparrow (Passer domesticus), a cosmopolitan
bird from Britain had been till recently a bird of every city, town
or village in India. Since 1990s it has become a bird of rare
visibility. The situation is not so only in India but the world
over, including urban Europe, the place of its origin. As the name
suggests, this small omnivorous lived in and around buildings built
by man and away from the forest carnivores. Many reasons, like use
of pesticides or changed building architecture are attributed to the
sudden disappearance of this man-friendly bird. But disappearance in
a short span is not explained by such reasons. Nevertheless, the
mushrooming of widespread cell-phone emf-r cloud in urban world
coincides with the disappearance of house-sparrow. In general, the
avian fauna being very sensitive could have been pushed to the edges
and in area of hostile and unacceptable niches.
Being visible and man-friendly species, the house-sparrow caught our
attention as disappearance of honeybees because of economic loss.
One can speculate that densities of many micro-organisms of soil or
small wild arthropods, annelids etc. in urban habitation overloaded
with cell-phone towers/electro-clouds which might also have
abandoned and remained un-noticed. In the absence of any inventory
or baseline data on ecological indices, before the installation of
cell-telephony in urban areas, such loss, if any, cannot be proved.
Since the widespread use of cell-phone is about 20 years old, there
has not been enough time for studying the long-term exposure effects
on health of man and other biota, so the ecology
We have experimentally proved that active cell-phone generated emf-r
retards seed germination and subsequent seedling growth, reduces
root differentiation and damages root hair surfaces, causes abiotic
stress and affects metabolism in comparison to respective controls.
Likewise, the brain differentiation in chick embryos of fertilized
hen eggs exposed to cell-phone emf-r for 4 hours gets affected. The
brood size of queen honeybee, pollen carrying capacity and bee
return gets reduced under the influence of cell-phone generated
emf-r.
Environmental Consequences:
We have laws against air, water and noise pollution but ignored on
radiofrequency radiations in the country. The latest efforts are
cosmetic. On account of increasing e.m.f-r clouds, concerns of
health effects on man and other biota apart, environmental
consequences on account of global warming and biodiversity loss,
both related and on focus of world’ most important conventions, are
weighing heavy on ecologists’ worry.
*Dean Research and Professor of Botany, Panjab University,
Chandigarh,
[email protected]
**Sr. Technical Engineer, Zoology Department Panjab University,
Chandigarh,
[email protected]
***Asst Professor, Department of Environment, Panjab University,
Chandigarh,
[email protected] |